Fallacy of missing subjunctive -- what's it called?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: *NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE* is an OXYMORON!
Next: equivalence
From: MoeBlee on 15 Jun 2010 12:47 On Jun 15, 8:22 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > As I understand, you mean: > > > "The stimulus bill worked" by definition means "unemployment is lower > > now". > > No, then it is lower now than it otherwise would have been, not that it > is lower now than when we passed the bill. I'm not stating my own view of what the line in the argument should be. And I'm not stating what the poster thinks it SHOULD be either. Merely, that this is the line in the version of the argument it would seem the poster objects to. I was stating the poster's version of what he takes to be an improper understanding of what "the stimulus bill worked" means. > All sorts of things might influence the unemployment rate. Some of > these effects might be larger than the positive effects of the stimulus > bill, but it wouldn't follow that the stimulus bill didn't work. This > is the situation the OP has in mind. Right, and I mentioned that. MoeBlee
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jun 2010 14:29 MoeBlee <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On Jun 15, 8:22 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> > As I understand, you mean: >> >> > "The stimulus bill worked" by definition means "unemployment is lower >> > now". >> >> No, then it is lower now than it otherwise would have been, not that it >> is lower now than when we passed the bill. > > I'm not stating my own view of what the line in the argument should > be. And I'm not stating what the poster thinks it SHOULD be either. > Merely, that this is the line in the version of the argument it would > seem the poster objects to. I was stating the poster's version of what > he takes to be an improper understanding of what "the stimulus bill > worked" means. Well, I disagree about what the OP meant, but it's best to let him say what he meant. >> All sorts of things might influence the unemployment rate. Some of >> these effects might be larger than the positive effects of the stimulus >> bill, but it wouldn't follow that the stimulus bill didn't work. This >> is the situation the OP has in mind. > > Right, and I mentioned that. -- Jesse F. Hughes "You do know that after the get done with [outlawing] cigarettes, they're gonna come after guns, right?" -- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher
From: MoeBlee on 15 Jun 2010 14:50 On Jun 15, 1:29 pm, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > On Jun 15, 8:22 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> > As I understand, you mean: > > >> > "The stimulus bill worked" by definition means "unemployment is lower > >> > now". > > >> No, then it is lower now than it otherwise would have been, not that it > >> is lower now than when we passed the bill. > > > I'm not stating my own view of what the line in the argument should > > be. And I'm not stating what the poster thinks it SHOULD be either. > > Merely, that this is the line in the version of the argument it would > > seem the poster objects to. I was stating the poster's version of what > > he takes to be an improper understanding of what "the stimulus bill > > worked" means. > > Well, I disagree about what the OP meant, but it's best to let him say > what he meant. As I said, that was my best understanding of what the poster meant. I understood him to say that certain people claim that "the stimulus bill worked" means the same as "unemployment is lower now". He wrote, in response to my example of an argument certain people make: "Unstated premise: If the stimulus bill worked, unemployment would be lower. " Thus, as I understood, he was stating an unstated premise in an argument that certain people make. The only change I made is to replace 'would' with 'is'. But I don't think that alters the essential structure. Then I also mentioned an argument in which "the stimulus bill worked" meant something different. In any case, no matter what the poster meant, I think my analysis addresses his concern while I show that there is not necessarily a fallacy involved but rather that we just need to decide which of two different senses of "the stimulus bill worked" we wish to adopt, as that phrase appears in two different valid arguments, essentially different only in how "the stimulus bill worked" is understood. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 15 Jun 2010 14:55
If I were to take it a step further, I would say that if there were a fallacy involved, it would not be the premise: If the stimulus bill worked, then unemployment is lower now. But rather the fallacy is found in whatever reasoning went into ARRIVING at that premise. MoeBlee |